Keeping wounded in CF - merged super-thread

[Webgear]

Seems rather impractical of the military to train him as an Int Op and then only to release him shortly after he has completed his course. 

Considering the Int branch is under currently under strength at the Cpl/MCpl/Sgt levels, why would the military waste the resources on him? From my understanding, he was doing a good job in the Int branch.

I believe there should be positions and trades for wound personnel, ever effort should be made to find a position and meaningful career for them.

 

[Journeyman]

Yes, I suspect it will be a long, drawn-out court battle.

Cynically (yes, me), I suspect the CF's operationally-focused Universality of Service will take a back seat to the touchy-feely Starbucks crowd who believe that "we're all equal, no matter what."

This latter group will trump the reality of combat operations where not everyone -- even people with all their limbs -- is capable of sustained stresses.

Perhaps more relevantly, a court decision in this direction will skew postings not actively involved with operations. This particular person, with no legs for example, would now likely be obligated to fill a HQ position where some operational soldier could have been posted for a rest/family recuperation time; now, it's "you're stuck in a field unit because this soldier and his equally deserving friends are filling all the echelon positions. Sorry."


ps - I'm hesitant to judge the brilliance of any CF member based on a media quote from his PER....but that's a problem with the PER system. *



* For those of you who are arguing for this guy's retention, but don't know what "PER" means.....you really have no say in this.




Edit: 1. Yes, I know the 48th regulator will weigh in momentarily. I have no intention of playing:  :argument:

2. To reformat after a Mod change.

 

[aesop081]

he was doing a good job in the Int branch.

UoS has nothing to do with him doing a good job or otherwise.

 

[Webgear]

UoS has nothing to do with him doing a good job or otherwise.

Yes, I understand that UoS has nothing to do with his performance.

 

[Gunner98]

I agree.

There are "Bona Fide Operational Requirements" (BFORs) that have to be satisfied by everyone in uniform.

Universality of Service is internal to the military.  BFORs are recognized by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
See link: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/occupational-eng.aspx

 

[ModlrMike]

This particular person, with no legs for example, would now likely be obligated to fill a HQ position where some operational soldier could have been posted for a rest/family recuperation time; now, it's "you're stuck in a field unit because this soldier and his equally deserving friends are filling all the echelon positions. Sorry."

This was the very discussion that precipitated the UofS policy and the development of the task statements for each trade. Prior to about 1995, there were quite a few "unfit" pers being hidden in echelon positions that could not be called upon to deploy during the rapid upswing in op tempo. The result was an understanding that fit soldiers required a rest as much as ill or injured soldiers did. If the ill and injured could not be returned to service in good time, then release was the only option. It was considered unfair that the fit pers would have to deploy repeatedly, while those comfortably ensconced in the rear would not.

Universality of Service is internal to the military.  BFORs are recognized by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
See link: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/occupational-eng.aspx

True, but they're intimately related, and it's likely BFORs that the case will hinge on, more so than UofS.

 

[Osotogari]

If civil service hiring was changed to so that wounded veterans went to the top of the list instead of fulfilling some diversity mantra then at least we could cast the net wider to ensure that our guys get looked after

 

[Dissident]

We have discussed this before and I still maintain we should offer recruiting jobs to soldiers who were injured in the line of duty first. A la Starship Troopers. Anything else I think the UoS needs to stand.

 

[OldSolduer]

If civil service hiring was changed to so that wounded veterans went to the top of the list instead of fulfilling some diversity mantra then at least we could cast the net wider to ensure that our guys get looked after

There is priority hiring in the civil service. That means if after competition, and two people are tied, the vet released under 3a or 3b gets the job. That is the law.

Edited to add: I am now on listening silence WRT this topic.

 

[George Wallace]

Seems rather impractical of the military to train him as an Int Op and then only to release him shortly after he has completed his course. 

Considering the Int branch is under currently under strength at the Cpl/MCpl/Sgt levels, why would the military waste the resources on him? From my understanding, he was doing a good job in the Int branch.

I believe there should be positions and trades for wound personnel, ever effort should be made to find a position and meaningful career for them.

Is he really an Int Op, or an Int Officer, or just an Infantryman who has had a Combat Int Crse?  Nothing irks me more than an article in the media incorrectly identifying things.  Many will remember the news of tanks passing through town X, when in fact it was a APC or large truck.  This news article has too many vague and perhaps incorrect statements for me to make an educated assessment on his qualifications.

 

[Navalsnpr]

Last year when I was deployed in KAF, we had a service member who was deployed with a prosthetic leg, which he received as a result of a previous tour. He was at the gym every day or so on the treadmill like everyone else.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There is priority hiring in the civil service. That means if after competition, and two people are tied, the vet released under 3a or 3b gets the job. That is the law.

In my opinion we need something more than military service as a “tie breaker.” We need a system that makes military service – even combat service, even wounded in combat – a requirement for some jobs.

There are some obvious civil service jobs in DND: there are, I am certain hundreds of jobs that de facto require military experience – the experience is openly, honestly stated in the job description. Many of these jobs require the sorts of experience that is not obtained on active (combat) service but they should be designated as “retired member.” (I say retired because the experience required is usually only obtained by a career that lasted more than 20 years and involved senior officer and/or warrant officer/senior NCO rank.) This “retired member” exists (or used to exist) in the UK civil service. My counterpart, when I was a director in NDHQ, was a Group Captain (RO) in the MOD in London. He “kept” his old RAF rank because his civil service job was open only to officers, with appropriate technical skills and knowledge, who had retired in the ranks of Cmdre/Brig, Capt/Col/Gp Capt, or Cdr/LCol/Wg Cdr. Some jobs in the UK – analogous to the guides in some Canadian historical sites, are open only to retired members of the UK armed forces: go visit HMS Victory or the Tower of London to see for yourself.

We can and should do some similar things.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...and it's not like there isn't a lot of 'bed-feathering' for soon to be retired per who haven't left Ottawa in many a year and "combat" is a 31 day *cough* fact-finding fly-over.

 

[tree hugger]

Personally, I feel our policy is fair, that you must be able to complete all universality of service be remain in the CF.

Now, if only we actually tested UofS instead of someone subjectively guessing if someone meets it....

 

[dapaterson]

If civil service hiring was changed to so that wounded veterans went to the top of the list instead of fulfilling some diversity mantra then at least we could cast the net wider to ensure that our guys get looked after

Umm... diversity groups include the disabled, so an individual lacking limb(s) already has that check in the box going for them.

 

[mariomike]

Info in this topic may be relevant.
Topic: "Forces weighing whether soldiers wounded in Afghanistan should be let go" 6 pages:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/98054.0.html

 

[GR66]

In my opinion we need something more than military service as a “tie breaker.” We need a system that makes military service – even combat service, even wounded in combat – a requirement for some jobs.

I have not seen this in writing but have been told this by my Chain of Command with regard to establishing NEW civilian positions.  These positions do not go to open competition, they are first made available to qualified members on the priority list.  This priority list would include both retired CF members as well as spouses of current members posted into that location.

 

[medicineman]

Now, if only we actually tested UofS instead of someone subjectively guessing if someone meets it....

They do - if a person fails to pass an ExPres Test or is challenging a medical releaseon UoS grounds, PSP is able to administer the test.  I've assisted in a few of these before.

MM

 

[tree hugger]

Is this a new thing?  When I was being released under 3bin 2005, I submitted a memo requesting to challenge the generic task statement of the UofS and was told they don't do that.... 

 

[mariomike]

Some jobs in the UK – analogous to the guides in some Canadian historical sites, are open only to retired members of the UK armed forces: go visit HMS Victory or the Tower of London to see for yourself.

We can and should do some similar things.

Something similar happens in Canada at the municipal level with various Chief's Ceremonial, Honour Guards and Pioneer Units. These paid positions  allow retired members to remain in departmental uniform, but with no operational responsibility. The emotional reward for pensioners far outweighs the financial.